+ Sponsors

Monday, 27 October 2008

'What is an illustrator to do?'

Dear Mike,

As the artist who painted the Bette Davis stamp, I can unequivocally state that in the original reference photo Bette was not smoking a cigarette. It just ain't so...though looking at the position of her fingers I can see why people might think otherwise.

In a supplementary drawing I did to accompany my James Dean postage stamp of 1995, I was indeed asked to remove a cigarette dangling from Dean's mouth, and the resulting picture definitely lacked some of Dean's inimitable cool. But what else could be done? As a smoker, I can say that cinema has romanticized a habit that is slowly destroying my lungs, and to keep it in the drawing would have been at the very least a subliminal endorsement of tobacco.

Ironically, no one has picked up on what actually was changed in the Bette Davis stamp: Ms. Davis' coat. In the original photo Bette was wearing a mink, and contrary to the old expression, in this day and age fur will not fly. Not any more so than a cigarette would. Had I depicted her in mink, there would likely have been an outcry (perhaps rightfully so) from the folks at PETA, accusing the Postal Service of endorsing fur as fashion.

I therefore had an acquaintance pose in red velvet to replace the mink, and then combined the two images for the final oil painting, which led to the slight alteration in the position of Bette's hand. And yes, you are correct: the model was simply clinging to the coat's lapel, but hopefully in a way reminiscent of Ms. Davis' inimitable style.

The trouble with all this is, in our time historical accuracy often gets pitted against political correctness. So what is an illustrator to do? Keep the cigarette, mink, or whatever in the picture, and be damned by public interest groups for encouraging vices? Or take them out, and be accused of Orwellian revisionism? It's kind of a lose/lose situation. To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, you simply can't please all of the people all of the time.

In either case, I hope this letter, straight from the horse's mouth, helps lay this particular ghost to rest...though I'm sure the bigger debate over historical accuracy versus political correctness will go on. And on....

The difference between revisionism for the sake of our remaining resources ( health, etc ) and revisionism for political reasons, is primarily motivation, and secondarily effect.

Removing leverage from cancer-making-habit, and from growing and slaughtering others for a bit of "feel" ISN'T the same as suppressing others' validity ( by denaturing history, e.g. ).

Just as all MBAs learn, it DOESN'T MATTER how much historically has been invested ( cigarette-habit, for instance ), it ONLY matters what we can do now ( having spent resources doesn't justify, itself, spending more resources ).

If I could show kids video of how blacks were treated in the late 1800's & early 1900's, interspersed with video of Martin Luther King Jr. & Barack Obama, to show contrast, to show that it was US ( everyone-altogether ), who made that difference, not some "inherent inferiority" supposedly among blacks, I'd do it: showing convinces, hearing-about doesn't.

Historical fact doesn't make imagined-history wrong, however, and fantasy-story is still a living-being's right ( modern comedies in the "western" story-form, e.g. ), but it hasn't any right to displace our race's valid-knowing, and THAT is the key.

It's funny, actually... So just to revisit the idea... I'm sure that Bette Davis wasn't smoking all of the time, and I'm sure she wasn't wearing fur all of the time... so how could it be historically inaccurate? Whether Mr. Deas used an image of Bette Davis with or without a cigarette, why would he be bound to reproduce it exactly? And now I understand all of the folds in her coat, and though I still think they're a bit abstract, they make more sense as velvet than as fur. So I retract (at least partially) my earlier complaints against all those folds ;)

Frankly, I am a little bit puzzled...
It seems to me that an illustrator can completely REDO HER FACE but he is prohibited to touch any mink or cigarette! Nose, size of the lips (and eyes)-it simply isn't Bette Davis anymore!!! How can any mink or cigarettes be of any importance after that?

>>>Captain Obvious,
Interesting, but of course an oil painting for a 2008 stamp is not an historical document....

Mike J.>>>

Mike: in one hundred years it will be, though. It won't be a record of Ms. Davis, herself, but it will be a record of how Ms. Davis was seen in 2008. Thank you so much for tracking down the artist -- his response adds quite a bit of depth to the discussion. And, parenthetically, what an articulate reply!

On a related note, my father was an art dealer and had nothing but disdain for fakes, even if they were historical ones. I actually have a nineteenth century replica of a fifteenth century statue kicking around somewhere . . . whatever its aesthetic appeal may be, its lack of authenticity required that it be banished from my father's presence.

One thing nobody has mentioned is that we are looking at a grossly oversized copy of the final image. The final product is a postage stamp, how much detail can there be on a postage stamp, CYMK 300 x 300 or 600 x 600 dpi? Must drive the artists nuts.

Sad that Ms. Davis' image, the way I remember her, often wearing a mink coat has to be be altered. That was her persona. That was the era. Why those who embrace political correctness feel a need to distort history is a poor commentary on our times. Also disturbing is the overwhelming fear people possess about offending an extreme minority such as PETA.